It wouldn't be so bad if the guy who stepped in to replace him didn't miss that easy f****** pass just outside of the end zone in the championship game.
Hunt would have caught that.
That's seven points and a win.

Again, which of our picks for next year are you good with giving away? Once you can answer that, see if you can figure out why the Chiefs haven’t given them away.

That’s a good question. How much is a league-leading rusher on a rookie contract worth if he has to miss 8 games (but you get to keep him for the next 1.5 years, cost-controlled, after his time off)? I don’t know the answer, but it would have been cool to find out.

You act like they got rid of Hunt for no reason. Maybe you don't give a shit that he is too stupid to not get into a drunken altercation with a girl and then lie about it for months, but the Chiefs did. Deal with it.

Am I happy they got rid of him? No, just apathetic. We weren't keeping him around long term, no one was giving us anything of value for him, and he plays the position that might be the easiest to find talent for in the NFL.

While it’s somewhat disappointing that you won’t answer the pick question, it’s not at all surprising, given that over 50% of this board wants to do the same with Hill (give him away for no compensation).

I will, though, stop talking about Hunt (in this thread). It’s far crazier that Chief Fan wants to get rid of Hill prior to any action/determination by the league. At least to this point, even the Chiefs aren’t that stupid.

Your pick question is stupid and pointless. That's why it's not getting answered. Chiefs didn't cut Hunt for no reason, regardless of how butt hurt that reasoning made you.

I suppose not, but they could have achieved the same result by suspending and later trading him, no? The only, apparent, reason is that they were too emotional/impatient/stupid to play the long game, not unlike Chief Fan with Hill.

So we circle back around to you pitching a prolonged temper tantrum because they didn't hold on to him and try to trade him for a throwaway pick. That is a really odd thing to get this worked up about.

Cause as good as Kareem Hunt, it's not hard to replace a running back. A WR like Hill would be damn near impossible to replace though.

Damien Williams had 5.1YPC last year and he's a journeyman RB. So we shouldn't act like Hunt was irreplaceable. He just ****ed himself over and cost his team during a playoff run. In between the two season, he'll have missed 15 games including 2 playoff games. He put himself in that position by being an idiot and then by lying to the Chiefs about his idiocy. If he would have been honest, worst case scenario is that he got 4-6 games suspended at the beginning of last year instead of basically the whole last half of the season. And that's the worst case scenario. Best case is that the chiefs would have somehow gotten the tape buried and he lives happily ever after.

That would prove him to be even smarter than anyone think he is - which is a lot - realizing he has no business in a team whose roster is decided by the media, and more committed to PC than winning.

:clap:

I get your frustrations with cutting Hunt and getting nothing in return. It sucked......a lot. However, I don't see that the Chiefs are really any worse off for doing it, other than recouping a late pick for him. Thompson looks like a similar player. Hopefully he will be. If so, we just got more cost controlled years on a rookie contract with him. And, we likely don't draft him if we still had Hunt. Williams performed well in his stead as well. As good as he was, his violence along with our depth at RB, made him expendable.

Hoping a player is as good as Hunt isn't as good as actually having Hunt. And yes, we didn't get a late pick, but we also had to use another pick to get Thompson.

Deal is though, Thompson is a different type of back than Hunt. Thompson is a little guy. Not sure he's gonna be anywhere near as durable as Hunt. Not sure you can pound the ball with him, like you could with Hunt. Hunt had an exceptional skill set for many situations. Cant believe the snap decision to release him to appease the SJ crowd, errr I mean "because he lied" to the Chiefs. :rolleyes:

look the majority of players for a team are just numbers, most do not take "personal" feelings into effect. Either your good enough or your not, period.

My take is to do whatever it takes to make the team better. Do I want Hunt or Hill on the team ? No but I would have NEVER just given them away or released them until I could recoup a high, 1st or at worst 2nd round pick.

How would I do it? I'd keep Hunt until the end of the season, as I would with hill and have all of the things they did fade in peoples minds. Once they both have steller years like you would expect, trade them. I think you could easily get a first for Hill and at worst a second for Hunt.

At that point its up to your GM to find the right 1st and 2nd picks in the draft. But to let them go for nothing is right up there with the stupidest moves ever. The only way I would do that was if they were convicted of a crime and in jail for 2 years or more. other than that its tag and trade for me.

The browns could easily get a second round pick if he comes back and plays great and they trade him in the off season.